-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On ??? 05 ???????????? 2015 03:53 ????, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > Either upstream states actual licensing terms, or refer to external > licensing terms. It seems we use the term "boilerplate" > differently: I don't call it "boilerplate" when upstream states > actual licensing terms (e.g. Expat written out rather than by > reference). > > Upstream "should" do whatever they want - but yes, if upstream > state licensing terms ambiguously then we cannot redistribute their > project, so it makes sense to suggest them to clarify if we are > uncertain what they mean (e.g. when stating "MIT" without URL or > actual licensing terms - because that may refer to several > different actual terms). > > When upstream states "Released under MIT." then a) the actual > licensing terms are not included and b) actual licensing terms are > uncertain. We then should add in debian/copyright the upstream > statement verbatim, add the actual licensing terms - also verbatim, > and ideally also add a comment on our reasoning for resolving > license terms from license grant. > > When upstream states "Released under GPL 2." then terms are > similarly not included but (arguably) certain. We then should > again add in debian/copyright the upstream statement verbatim, and > (because we can) refer to /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2. We do > *not* need¹ to also add the boilerplate included in the GPL license > text under the title "How to Apply These Terms to Your New > Programs" - exactly because we are not creating a new program ;-) > > > If by boilerplate you mean common sets of actual licensing terms > (e.g. Expat) then true, it might be convenient with a tool that can > spit out verbatim texts we do not ship below > /usr/share/common-licenses. > > If by boilerplate you mean common _reference_ for sets of common > licensing term (e.g. the FSF-recommended text for GPL licenses) > then wrong: There is no need for adding such additional text to > debian/copyright if upstream did not state it using those exact > same words. Because such text is then neither verbatim copy of > upstream statement nor actual licensing terms. > > > > If you have trouble locating actual licensing terms, then take that > as indication that those reading the copyright file you are writing > may have trouble too: When you've succeeded locating the actual > licensing terms then consider add a comment on where you found > them, and your reasoning for why that location is believed to be > reasonably correct. > > Practivally, if you use the machine-readable copyright file format, > then first line has a URL to a web page, which links to licenses at > SPDX: http://spdx.org/licenses > > > Hope that helps,
Cool. That makes it clear. Thanks. - -- Regards Balasankar C http://balasankarc.in -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJV6sPVAAoJEJbtq5sua3Fxe28H/1VcX248/4jdEaV0CrUvAecB +ubKPik8XWeiHsFDJS5PGo3ZOgYO3Xaj2+kA1GFMXGZFlWwwILK1xVqC5k+VLuIo uhvShB3rcuJzfrOlZo2rVkQbxMaZWeM638uq3ee6AHs0jyT4qb3hVONp/775LDT/ Lx34hDRMGPjIFhLJgLwXGsu+uTUOa1CYUcJJwc0z0umk6PqlVW4xt3eIQ7JK8YWj NrT5bOoEZvcHNQbnI6ATAVFKLL/Uc3P+K2RLeBVjfoE+QxzRuboO+H2cdG2C1TeD lyzXHdpcd2d68CepmLn32D0Hr4ki5lF0zuU3CKtvPbh9o0IRl/3bedXB6mA0qMk= =KssL -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
0x2E6B7171.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
